9/23/2016

G.R.No.L4904

TodayisFriday,September23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.L4904February5,1909
ROSALIAMARTINEZ,plaintiffappellant,
vs.
ANGELTAN,defendantappellee.
DomingoFranco,forappellant.
DoroteoKaragdag,forappellee.
WILLARD,J.:
Theonlyquestioninthiscaseiswhetherornottheplaintiffandthedefendantweremarriedonthe25thdayof
September,1907,beforethejusticeofthepeace,JoseBallori,inthetownofPalomponintheProvinceofLeyte.
Therewasreceivedinevidenceatthetrialwhatiscalledanexpedientedematrimoniocivil.ItiswritteninSpanish
andconsists,first,ofapetitiondirectedtothejusticeofthepeace,datedonthe25thofSeptember,1907,signed
bytheplaintiffandthedefendant,inwhichtheystatethattheyhavemutuallyagreedtoenterintoacontractof
marriage before the justice of the peace, and ask that the justice solemnize the marriage. Following this is a
document dated on the same day, signed by the justice of the peace, by the plaintiff, by the defendant, and by
ZacariasEsmeroandPacitaBallori.Itstatesthepresentationofthepetitionabovementionedthatthepersons
whosigneditwhereactuallypresentintheofficeofthejusticeonthesamedaynamedthattheyratifiedunder
oaththecontentsofthepetition,andthattheyinsistedinwhattheyhadthereaskedfor.Italsostatedthatbeing
requiredtoproducewitnessesofthemarriage,thepresentedZacariasEsmeroasawitnessforthehusbandand
PacitaBalloriasawitnessforthewife.Followingthisisacertificateofmarriagesignedbythejusticeofthepeace
and the witnesses Zacarias Esmero and Pacita Ballori, dated the 25th day of September, 1907, in which it is
statedthattheplaintiffandthedefendantwerelegallymarriedbythejusticeofthepeaceinthepresenceofthe
witnessesonthatday.
Thecourtbelowdecidedthecaseinfavorofthedefendant,holdingthatthepartieswerelegallymarriedonthe
daynamed.Theevidenceinsupportofthatdecisionis:First.Thedocumentitself,whichtheplaintiffadmitsthat
shesigned.Second.Theevidenceofthedefendant,whotestifiesthatheandsaidplaintiffappearedbeforethe
justice of the peace at the time named, together with the witness Zacarias Esmero and Pacita Ballori, and that
they all signed the document above mentioned. Third. The evidence of Zacarias Esmero, one of the above
namedwitnesses,whotestifiesthattheplaintiff,thedefendant,andPacitaBalloriappearedbeforethejusticeat
thetimenamedanddidsignthedocumentreferredto.Fourth.TheevidenceofPacitaBallori,whotestifiedtothe
sameeffect.Fifth.TheevidenceofJoseSantiago,thebailiffofthecourtofthejusticeofthepeace,whotestified
thattheplaintiff,thedefendant,thetwowitnessesabovenamed,andthejusticeofthepeacewereallpresentin
theofficeofthejusticeofthepeaceatthetimementioned.
Theonlydirectevidenceinfavoroftheplaintiffisherowntestimonythatsheneverappearedbeforethejusticeof
the peace and never was married to the defendant. She admits that she signed the document in question, but
saysthatshesigneditinherownhome,withoutreadingit,andattherequestofthedefendant,whotoldherthat
itwasapaperauthorizinghimtoasktheconsentofherparentstothemarriage.
Thereissomeindirectevidencewhichtheplaintiffclaimssupportshercase,butwhichwethink,whenproperly
considered, is not entitled to much weight. The plaintiff at the time was visiting, in the town of Palompon, her
married brother and was there for about two weeks. The wife of her brother, Rosario Bayot, testified that the
plaintiffneverleftthehouseexceptinhercompany.Butsheadmittedoncrossexaminationthatsheherselfwent
toschooleverymorningandthatononeoccasiontheplaintiffhadgonetochurchunaccompanied.Thetestimony
ofthiswitnesslosesitsforcewhenthetestimonyofPacitaBalloriisconsidered.Shesaysthatattherequestof
the defendant on the day named, about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, she went to the store of a Chinese named
Veles that there she met the plaintiff and her mother that she asked the mother of the plaintiff to allow the
plaintifftoaccompanyher,thewitness,toherownhouseforthepurposeofexaminingsomedresspatternsthat
the mother gave her consent and the two rights left the store, but instead of going to the house of the witness
theywentdirectlytotheofficeofthejusticeofthepeacewheretheceremonytookplacethataftertheceremony
hadtakenplace,onecameadvisingthemthatthemotherwasapproaching,andthattheythereuponhurriedlyleft
theofficeofthejusticeandwenttothehouseofPacitaBallori,wherethemotherlaterfoundthem.
Theothertestimonyoftheplaintiffrelatingtocertainstatementsmadebythejusticeofthepeace,whodiedafter
theceremonywasperformedandbeforethetrial,andcertainstatementsmadebyPacitaBallori,isnotsufficient
toovercomethepositivetestimonyofthewitnessesforthedefendant.
TheothertestimonyofPacitaBalloriisseverelycriticizedbycounselfortheappellantinhisbrief.Itappearsthat
during her first examination she was seized with an hysterical attack and practically collapsed at the trial. Her
examination was adjourned to a future day and was completed in her house where she was sick in bed. It is
claimedbycounselthathercollapsewasduetothefactthatsherecognizedthatshetestifiedfalselyinstatingthe
officeofthejusticeofthepeacewasatthetimeinthemunicipalbuilding,when,infact,itwasinaprivatehouse.
Wedonotthinkthattherecordjustifiestheclaimoftheappellant.Thestatementastothelocationoftheofficeof
the justice of the peace was afterwards corrected by the witness and we are satisfied that she told the facts
substantiallyastheyoccurred.
Thereis,moreover,inthecasewrittenevidencewhichsatisfiesusthattheplaintiffwasnottellingthetruthwhen
she said she did not appear before the justice of the peace. This evidence consists of eight letters, which the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1909/feb1909/gr_l4904_1909.html

1/3

9/23/2016

G.R.No.L4904

defendantclaimswereallwrittenbytheplaintiff.Theplaintiffadmitsthatshewrotelettersnumbered2and9.The
authenticityoftheotherswasproven.No.9isasfollows:
ANGEL:UptothistimeIdidnotseemyfatherbutIknowthatheisveryangryandifhebeinformedthat
wehavebeenmarriedcivilly,Iamsurethathewillturnmeoutofthehouse.
Dowhatyoumaydeemconvenient,asIdon'tknowwhattodo.
ShouldIbeabletogotomorrowtoMerida,Ishalldoso,becauseIcannotremainhere.
Yours,ROSAL.
LetterNo.6,whichbearsnodate,butwhichundoubtedlywaswrittenonthemorningofthe25thofSeptember,is
asfollows:
Sr.D.ANGEL,TAN.
ANGEL:ItisimpossibleformetogotothehouseofVelesthismorningbecausemysisterinlawwillnotlet
megothereifitsuitsyou,Ibelievethatthisafternoon,about5or6o'clock,isthebesthour.
Arrangeeverything,asIshallgothereonlyforthepurposeofsigning,andhavePacitawaitformeatthe
Chinesestore,becauseIdon'tliketogowithoutPacita.
Thehousemustbeonebelongingtoprudentpeople,andnooneshouldknowanythingaboutit.
Yours,ROSAL.
ItwillbenoticedthatthiscorroboratescompletelythetestimonyofPacitaBalloriastohermeetingtheplaintiffin
theafternoonatthestoreoftheChinese,Veles.LetterNo.7isalsoundated,butwasevidentlywrittenafterthe
marriagebeforethejusticeofthepeace.Itisasfollows:
Sr.D.ANGEL,TAN.
ANGEL:Ifyouwanttospeaktomymother,whoisalsoyours,comeherebyandby,atabout9or10,when
you see that the tide is high because my brother will have to go to the boat for the purpose of loading
lumber.
Don't tell her that we have been civilly married, but tell her at first that you are willing to celebrate the
marriage at this time, because I don't like her to know today that we have been at the courthouse,
inasmuchasshetoldmethismorningthatsheheardthatwewouldgotothecourt,andthatwemustnot
causehertobeashamed,andthatifIinsistonbeingmarriedImustdoitright.
Tellheralsothatyouhaveaskedmetocarryyou.
Isendyouherewiththeletterofyourbrother,inorderthatyoumaydowhathewishes.
Yours,ROSAL.
LetterNo.8wasalsoevidentlywrittenafterthemarriageandisinpartasfollows:
Sr.D.ANGELTAN.
ANGEL: I believe it is better for you to go to Ormoc on Sunday of the steamer Rosa, for the purpose of
asking my father's permission for our marriage, and in case he fails to give it, then we shall do what we
deemproper,and,ifhedoesnotwishustomarrywithouthispermission,youmustrequesthisconsent.
Tellmewhosaidthatmysisterinlawknowsthatwearecivillymarriedmybrotherilltreatmentisamatter
ofnoimportance,aseverythingmaybecarriedout,withpatience.
ItwasprovenatthetrialthatthedefendantdidgotoOrmoconthesteamerRosaasindicatedinthisletter,and
thattheplaintiffwasonthesameboat.Theplaintifftestified,however,thatshehadnocommunicationwiththe
defendantduringthevoyage.Theplaintiffandthedefendantneverlivedtogetherashusbandandwife,andupon
her arrival in Ormoc, after consulting with her family, she went to Cebu and commenced this action, which was
brought for the purpose of procuring the cancellation of the certificate of marriage and for damages. The
evidencestronglypreponderatesinfavorofthedecisionofthecourtbelowtotheeffectthattheplaintiffappeared
beforethejusticeofthepeaceatthetimenamed.
It is claimed by the plaintiff that what took place before the justice of the peace, even admitting all that the
witnessesforthedefendanttestifiedto,didnotconstitutealegalmarriage.Generalorders,No.68,section6,is
asfollows:
Noparticularformfromtheceremonyofmarriageisrequired,butthepartiesmustdeclareinthepresence
ofthepersonsolemnizingthemarriage,thattheytakeeachotherashusbandandwife.
ZacariasEsmero,oneofthewitnesses,testifiedthatupontheoccasioninquestionthejusticeofthepeacesaid
nothinguntilafterthedocumentwassignedandthenaddressinghimselftotheplaintiffandthedefendantsaid,
"You are married." The petition signed the plaintiff and defendant contained a positive statement that they had
mutuallyagreedtobemarriedandtheyaskedthejusticeofthepeacetosolemnizethemarriage.Thedocument
signedbytheplaintiff,thedefendant,andthejusticeofthepeace,statedthattheyratifiedunderoath,beforethe
justice,thecontentsofthepetitionandthatwitnessesofthemarriagewereproduced.Amortgagetookplaceas
shownbythecertificateofthejusticeofthepeace,signedbybothcontractingparties,whichcertificatesgivesrise
tothepresumptionthattheofficerauthorizedthemarriageindueform,thepartiesbeforethejusticeofthepeace
declaringthattheytookeachotherashusbandandwife,unlessthecontraryisproved,suchpresumptionbeing
corroborated in this case by the admission of the woman to the effect that she had contracted the marriage
certifiedtointhedocumentsignedbyher,whichadmissioncanonlymeanthepartiesmutuallyagreedtounitein
marriagewhentheyappearedandsignedthesaiddocumentwhichsostatesbeforethejusticeofthepeacewho
authorized the same. It was proven that both the plaintiff and the defendant were able to read and write the
Spanish language, and that they knew the contents of the document which they signed and under the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1909/feb1909/gr_l4904_1909.html

2/3

9/23/2016

G.R.No.L4904

circumstances in this particular case were satisfied, and so hold, that what took place before the justice of the
peaceonthisoccasionamountedtoalegalmarriage.
Thedefendant'soriginalanswerwasageneraldenialoftheallegationscontainedinthecomplaint.Amongthese
allegations was a statement that the parties had obtain previously the consent of the plaintiff's parents. The
defendantwasafterwardsallowedtoamendhisanswersothatitwasadenialoftheallegationsofthecomplaint
exceptthatrelatingtotheconditioninregardtotheconsentoftheparents.Theplaintiffobjectedtotheallowance
ofthisamendment.Afterthetrialhadcommencedthedefendantwasagainallowedtoamendhisanswersothat
itshouldbeanadmissionofparagraphs2and3ofthecomplaint,exceptthatpartwhichrelatedtotheconsentof
the parents. It will be seen that this second amendment destroyed completely the first amendment and the
defendantslawyerstatedthatwhatheintendedtoallegeinhisfirstamendment,butbyreasonofthehastewith
whichthefirstamendmentwasdrawnhehadunintentionallymadeitexactlytheoppositeofwhathehadintended
tostate.Afterargumentthecourtallowedthesecondamendment.Wearesatisfiedthatinthisallowancethere
wasnoabuseofdiscretionandwedonotseehowtheplaintiffwasinanywayprejudiced.Sheproceededwith
thetrialofthecasewithoutaskingforacontinuance.
The judgment of the court below acquitting the defendant of the complaint is affirmed, with the costs of this
instanceagainsttheappellant.
Arellano,C.J.,Torres,Mapa,Johnson,andCarson,JJ.,concur.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1909/feb1909/gr_l4904_1909.html

3/3